Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

In Middle East, Looking Beyond Bush

By The New York Times May 9, 2008 10:45 amMay 9, 2008 10:45 am

When Israeli and Palestinian leaders committed themselves to peace talks after meeting in Annapolis, Md., last November, President Bush had hopes of wrapping up his presidency on a foreign policy high note, with a deal for the contours of a Palestinian state. But, as Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in her column today, with Mr. Bush headed to the region next week for the second time in five months, peace seems more elusive than ever — and some are already looking past him to his successor. Go to Column …

Israel could only benefit from a president whose focus is largely domestic. Not playing “The Great Game” Israel and its adversaries the out of the pr limelight might make real progress towards a settlement. The problem today is the administration uses ME “negotiations” to win the newscycle as political cover for its total lack of interest and competence in domestic affairs.

The neocons are Israel’s worst enemy by making the Jewish state the whipping boy for the Islamic world’s fury of being pushed around by Bush’s messianic do-it-my-way-or-else foreign policy.

They should arrest Bush for war crimes while he is there! How he can possibly think that anyone is going to consider him a ‘peacemaker’ when what he really is is a gun and weapons salesmen!
He is an embarrassment to every American and I wish he would just shut up and stay out of the world.
Impeach him and Cheney now before they start another war while claiming to be making peace!

The Bush Presidency, and his legacy for all time, is absolutely shameful and has brought America to I-rack and ruin. This administration’s absolute lack of proactive and thoughtful activism in various ares of the Middle East leaves us with a soon to be nuclear-armed Iran, a $5000./second endless war in Iraq, Lebanon in utter chaos, Jordan strained beyond capacity with refugees, Hamas still in place and rasing hell, and oil at $120./barrel. WAY TO GO, GEORGE!

Mr. Alterman’s assertion that it is “hard to remember a less auspicious time to pursue Arab-Israeli peacemaking than right now” demonstrates either a rather faulty memory, or a studied ignorance of reality. 1948 was more auspicious? – or 1967? – or 1973? – or at the height of the Intifada – or…? – go ahead, pick a time. As long as the Palestinian leadership continues to deceive its people into believing that Israel must not be recognized, that violence/terrorism will advance their cause or that Israel eventually will cease to exist, no time will ever be auspicious. That Arabs in the region look forward “with a hopeful eye, particularly if his (Bush’s) successor is a Democrat”, says more about the Democratic Party candidates than it does about the peace process.

For all the obvious reasons, a complete waste of time and money. On the other hand, Bush’s presense in Washington is no more productive.
Is it possible that after 7 years in office, this is only Bush’s second trip to Israel with the first just 4 months ago? Surely that tells us that this is all about him and nothing about substance.
The fool apparently actually believes his own flackery. He can wing in for a photo op and all will be well.

Stick a fork in the “peace process”. Of course, the Arabs and Iranians are “looking past Mr. Bush with an eager eye”. Hamas has already endorsed BHO, and their sponsor Iran and its other allies Syria and Hezbollah are feeling their oats. Iran sees the region soon falling under its control, as Obama proclaims his hope to negotiate with the mullahs a smooth transition from one hegemon to another. Our enemies also note Obama’s denunciation of Hillary”s threat to “annihilate” Iran if they use nuclear weapons.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Our retreat in the region will be followed by Iranian advances. Perhaps, Israel will wake up in time to prevent Ahmadinejad’s final solution, or perhaps not. But if BHO is elected, all they’ll get from us is moral support, if that.

Why are Israelis so enamored with Bush? What have they gained under his two terms that has benefited them so much? Do they feel more secure with U.S. troops in Iraq? That hardly seems reasonable especially considering the current near civil war in Lebanon.

They have their very own “iron” curtain to wall off the Palestinians; they are bombarded almost daily from Gaza; their legitimacy is still questioned by the Arab world. So not much has changed, has it? ANd I’m not aware of anything that has changed for the better. Iran has more power than ever before, but that hardly seems like a good sign for Israel. So, somebody, what is the attraction to bush and the neocons?

Of course, Bush is a placeholder! Every president in history was in the identical position as their term ended – it’s called Lame Duck. The real concern is that if Obama is elected in the GE, he would be exactly as effective as Bush is today … the first president in history to be a Lame Duck on Inauguration Day. His approval ratings will start at about 25% (where Bush is now) and he will be the #1 reason the nation elects a Republican Congress in 2010. It’s something the starry-eyed Obama supporters just can’t see … Obama would be a one-term president with a Republican Congress and Hillary would be two-terms with a Democrat Congress and a virtually hand-off of the presidency to Obama in 2016 when he has developed some experience and maturity. His ego and impatience is tearing his own party apart.

After more than seven years of neglect so W is now “working” on the Middle East? I think not. He is trying to get the impression out that he is “working” there since otherwise all he can show for his presidency is a never ending war of choice, negligence in the pursuit of bin Laden dead-or-alive, and a faultering economy. But this lattest gimmick will fail too.

bush is a lame duck at home, but he is even lamer around the world. There has been a sense for years from around the world that they have to wait out the end of this joke of an administration before they can take the US seriously again. Of course, a mcsame presidency would render us totally irrelevant. If Americans are so stupid that they elect another republicons the rest of the world will write us off as total morons and without any further redeeming value, and they will make their alliances elsewhere and we will be marginalized in a world where we should hold ultimate moral and economic sway. Thanks to bush and the republicon party we have niether right now.

I greatly fear another waste of time and money just for photo ops to make it appear he is doing something.
Remember his Africa trip, all we got were hard to take laughs at his dancing.
We need a Congressional law that lame duck Presidents can go abroad only if they first establish:
1. Why they are going. What gain will the nation get?
2. How much money, if any, will be given away and for what purposes. Also the source of the money.

All of you Bush haters on this site should remember that the second, and bloodiest intifada began on Clinton’s watch in 2000. So when you claim that the last 7 years have been a policy disaster in the Middle East, you may want to increase that assessment to include the last 2 years under Clinton as well. It is beyond argument that Clinton left the Middle East in a worse condition than he found it. So please, save the “famous” Clinton foreign diplomacy worship for someone who doesn’t know any better.

Consider the enormous cost of transporting a president anywhere, even across the street, much less to the Middle East. There’s the cost of Air Force One, plus the salaries of countless personnel and ancillary security, press, various assistants, medical personnel, the lot, all in it is staggering.

Consider too the enormous costs Bush has put upon the United States just by being president. Money, prestige, world influence.

Consider lastly, that it might be a bright idea to ask Bush just to stay in the White House till his term is, at last and gratefully, over.

Stick a fork in the “peace process”. Of course, the Arabs and Iranians are “looking past Mr. Bush with an eager eye”. Hamas has already endorsed BHO, and their sponsor Iran and its other allies Syria and Hezbollah are feeling their oats. Iran sees the region soon falling under its control, as Obama proclaims his hope to negotiate with the mullahs a smooth transition from one hegemon to another. Our enemies also note Obama’s denunciation of Hillary”s threat to “annihilate” Iran if they use nuclear weapons.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Our retreat from the region will be followed by Iranian advances. Perhaps, Israel will wake up in time to prevent Ahmadinejad’s final solution, or perhaps not. But if BHO is elected, all they’ll get from us is moral support, if that.

Please, please, make him stay where he belongs?, yes that is a question mark, is there anyone whom knows where he belongs? Certainly not as a head of state. We have lost all that we hold dear since he has been in office, another question mark needed there. What has happened to a person of integrity, honesty, good English, seemingly gone the way of the dinos, not insinuating anything. Too bad no one seems fit for the job at hand, JUST DON’T KNOW!, excuse me need the ? mark there instead of the exclamation mark

Responding to commenter 7’s assertion that Obama’s “ego and impatience is tearing his own party apart.”

That description is a perfect fit for Hillary and her campaign. But for Obama? He’s been the posterchild of restraint. Ego is when you have no chance in hell of winning, and yet you insist on remaining so that the “white” working class voters (of which I am one) can have their voices heard. C’mon number 7 – get real.

You are contradicting yourself brandooun. The U.S. is the ultimate moral and economic leader in the world. The key word is “leader”. If we follow the rest of the world as you suggest, we become a follower. Do you even know the political ideologies of the presidents of England, France, Italy, Australia, etc? As power makes its inevitable shift from conservative to liberal and back has it affected you personally or changed how you feel about that country? Of course not. To imply that other countries will like us more or less because of the political party of our president is nonsense. Life will go on and the terrorists will continue to hate us, the leaders will pretend to get along with us, and the average person in the street won’t give us a second thought.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…